Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 15 1993LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD JUNE 15,1993 12:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the May 4,1993 meeting were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:Brad Walker Ramsay Ball Diane Chachere John McDaniel Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam Joe Selz Jim VonTungeln Emmett Willis,Jr. Members Absent:Jerilyn Nicholson Ronald Woods City Attorney:Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA JUNE 15,1993 DEFERRED ITEM A.Miss Selma's Schools Short-Form POD (Z-5684) B.Springtree Village Amended Short-Form PRD (Z-4969-A) REZ NIN ITEMS: 1.Z-3150-E North Chicot Road MF-18 to 0-2 2.Z-3468-A Chicot Road I-2 to C-3 3.Z-5097-B Deltic North Slope R-2,MF-6,MF-18, 0-2 and C-2 to R-2, MF-12,O-3 and C-3 4.Z-5681 Otter Creek Road and Stagecoach R-2 to C-3 5.Z-5685 ¹2 Southern Oaks Court R-2 to R-4 6.Z-5686 4807 Ballinger R-2 to R-5 7.Z-5888 7604 Eagle Drive R-2 to C-3 June 15,1993 N .:A PILE NO.:Z-5684 NAME:MISS SELMA'S SCHOOLS —SHORT-FORM POD LOCATION:7819 "T"Street ~DEPT L P EE:~EE HITE T: MICHAEL B.AND ROBIN R.SMITH ELLEN POWELL YEARY 7819 "T"Street 1012 west 2ndLittleRock,AR 72207 Little Rock,AR 72201 225-0123 372-5940 AREA:1.93 ACRES BER OP LOTS:1 FT EW TREET:0 ~ZONIN :R-2 to POD ~PR Rggg~gg:Private preschool and R-4 elementary school 0-3 LANNING DISTRI T:3 ~E E&ll TRACT:22.03 VARI E RE E ED:None TATEME T F P 0 AL: The applicant proposes the establishment of a POD to encompass the site presently occupied by the applicant's "Miss Selma's Schools";the abandonment of the "TE Street right-of-way from where "T"Street enters the boundary of the applicant's propertytoitsdead-end;and,the abandonment of two fragments of the Glover Street right-of-way which were retained when the remainder of Glover Street was abandoned to provide "hammer-head"turn- arounds at the end of "TD Street.The applicant proposes toconstructonenewsingle-story multi-purpose building and one two-story classroom building,and eliminate four older buildings which are converted residential structures.It is proposed to provide on-site faculty and staff parking,and to design for adequate traffic circulation to the facilities and for a "queing" (pick-up/drop-off)area.The new facilities are proposed toretainthesmall-scale residential character of the present campus.It is proposed that the multi-purpose building beconstructedinthesummerof1993,with the remainder of the improvements to follow in 1994 or 1995. June 15,1993 ITEM A n inu FILE '-4 A.PR P AL Review and approval by the Planning Commission of the site development plan and a recommendation to the Board of Directors of the POD with the abandonment of "T"and Glover Streets is requested. B.EXI TI ITI The existing site consists of nine lots (six in Block 18 and three in Block 19 of Bellevue Addition),plus the abandoned right-of-way of Glover Street.There are presently eight residential structures and four former accessory buildingsallbeingusedasclassrooms,storage,and officefacilities.There is an unimproved alley right-of-way along the south property line.One adjacent property owner has included this alley right-of-way into his/her fenced and landscaped yard.Portions of the alley right-of-way are overgrown with heavy underbrush and weeds.There is a metal storage building on alley right-of-way in one location.The remainder of the alley is grass and trees. The site presently consists of three different zones:R-2, R-4,and 0-3.To the west and south are R-2 and R-4 zoned properties.To the north is 0-3 property.Immediately to and contiguous with the site to the east is an R-2 property, with C-3 and 0-3 properties beyond and across Watt Street. C.EN INEERING UTILITY MME T Little Rock Engineering Division comments that "T"Street needs to be closed,but that an in-lieu contribution for the upcoming improvements to Watt Street need to be assessed. Engineering also notes that the on-street parking on WattStreetneedstobeeliminated. It is observed that the diagonal parking along the west property line must be 90 degree parking with adequate maneuvering space. The traffic circulation pattern needs thought to eliminatecross-over traffic from the parking area north of the "T" Street right-of-way conflicting with traffic to and from the"queing"pick-up/drop-off drive. The drive from the drop-off/pick-up area cannot enter "T" Street as shown.It is suggested that,if this drive isdesired,additional length of "T"Street should be abandonedtoincludethearealyingbetweenLots3and10. 2 June 15,1993 ITEM NO.:ntinu d FILE NO :—4 Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer mains are located in "T"Street and along the west property line. They caution that no structures may be constructed over the existing sewer maine. Little Rock water works states that there is a 2 inch water main in "T"Street,so the right-of-way will have to be retained as an easement or the main will have to be abandoned.They state that on-site fire protection may be required,in which case an 8 inch main will have to be extended to the fire hydrant. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has approved the plat. The Fire Department requests a 20 foot minimum clearance for the width of the turnaround at the island. D.I E LE AL TECH I AL D I An application to abandon "T"and Glover Streets must be properly completed and filed with the City Clerk and with the Planning Office. In order to plan the driveway from the "queing"(pick- up/drop-off)area as shown,the Lot 10 property owner must agree to abandon her right-of-way in front of her residence. Otherwise,as noted in the Engineering comments,the driveway as shown is not permitted. The landscaping/buffer plan must be prepared and submitted to the Planning staff. E .)~ALY'~I The applicant proposes a development which,if not for the availability of a POD ordinance,would have involved rezoning,street closing,building setback variances, conditional uses,and site plan review,and which would have required multiple reviews by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors.To deal with the complex and varied components of the proposed development,the PUD was selected whereby all the aspects could be considered as a unit. The school is an institution of long standing and,in this application,an attempt is being made to improve the facility,traffic circulation,and parking.The proposal is for the new buildings to be consistent with and retain the small-scale "neighborhood"style and "feeling"of the present campus.The new classroom building which is designated as "two-story"is,in reality,a story-and-a- half,utilizing floor area under the roof of the first floor 3 June 15,1993 I A n in ed F and dormers.Both proposed buildings would be constructedtoblendwiththeresidentialcharacteroftheother buildings on site and in the neighborhood and would utilizeresidentialexteriormaterials. The new multi-purpose building is shown to be eight feet from the south property line.Recalling that there is a twenty foot alley to the south,there is actually more distance between the building and the neighbor's propertylinethanisrepresentedbytheeightfootdimension. F.FF RECOMMENDATI Staff recommends approval of the site plan and of the abandonment of the street right-of-way for "T"and GloverStreets.A utility easement should be retained on each right-of-way.Approval is conditioned on gaining signatures from all affected property owners for the abandonment of thestreetright-of-way for the two streets,including the owner of Lot 10,and approval by the Board of Directors. BDIVI I OMMITTEE OMME T:(MAY 13,1993) The architect,Ms.Yeary,was present to represent the applicant. The site plan and survey were presented by Staff.Ms.Yeary outlined the request.The Engineering comments regarding the driveway from the "queing"area was discussed.Ms.Yeary reported that the required Lot 10 property owner was being contacted to include her in the request to abandon "T"Street from her east property line to the west.Also,the Engineering comment regarding the deficiency of the traffic circulationpatterninvolvingtheparkinglotandthe"queing"area wasdiscussed.Ms.Yeary explained that the parking lot is forfacultyandstaffwhoarenotarrivingandleavingwhenthe parents are bringing their children.Traffic circulation,then,is not the problem is might appear to be.A question was raised concerning the unimproved alley along the south property line, Ms.Yeary explained that since the school does not need the halfoftheright-of-way which would revert to them,and since atleaseoneneighborhasfencedthealley,the applicant does not want to raise this issue at this time. ~TA~F QPDATE: The applicant owns all the property on the south side of "T" Street from Watt Street west to the dead end.The applicant also owns all but three lots on the north side;a car wash occupies the two corner lots at the north-west corner of "T"Street and 4 June 15,1993 ITEM Cnin FILE 0 '-4 Watt Street,and Mrs.Louise Norton owns the third lot west of the corner.There are two properties facing Del Ray Street which are affected,the property lines of which adjoin the right-of-way line of "T"Street at its dead-end and the remaining fragments of Glover Street. According to the applicant,Mr.Norton had promised in the past to sell her property to the applicant upon her,Mrs.Norton's, death.Therefore,the applicant felt that Mrs.Norton would be amenable to participating in abandoning the right-of-way of that portion of "T"Street which lies in front of her property.The Site Plan which had been submitted by the applicant showed a drop-off/pick-up area with a traffic island in front of the proposed building which fronted on the "T"Street right-of-way. A portion of the drive way of the drive-thru and a portion of the island extended to that part of the right-of-way in front of Mrs. Norton's property.It was necessary,in order for the Site Plan to be approved as submitted,for Mrs.Norton to agree to the abandonment of the right-of-way in front of her property. The initial plans for abandonment,then,involved getting the signatures of the owners of the two properties on Del Ray Street which back onto "T"Street,and of Mrs.Norton.A deadline was immanent to get these signatures on the petition and to the City Clerk.When it was found that Mr.Norton and her two sons were unwilling to agree to the abandonment of the right-of-way in front of Mrs.Nortons residence,and when one of the property owners on Del Ray Street refused to sign the petition,the applicant felt that there was insufficient time to re-group and pursue a different course.Accordingly,on May 24,1993,the applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral of the item until the July 13,1993,Planning Commission hearing.This would,from information related by the applicant,cause a one-year delay in being able to build the first phase of the proposed development,since construction could not be under way during the school year. It was realized,however,that there was an alternative means of pursuing the abandonment of "T"Street and Glover Street:the process for adversarial abandonment whereby a Board of Directors member sponsors the abandonment and the matter is considered by the Board of Directors without it having been considered and recommended by the Planning Commission.The applicant appearedattheBoardofDirectorsAgendameetingonMay26,1993,and atleastoneBoardmemberagreedtobethesponsorofthe abandonment request at the Board of Directors level.It was agreed by the Board that the matter would be on the June 1,1993 agenda to set a public hearing for the June 15,1993,meeting. 5 June 15,1993 ITEM NO.:A n in ed F LE Z-4 Since the application to abandon the "T"Street and Glover Street rights-of-way was being deleted from the poD application,the poD application,it was realized,could proceed to the Planning Commission as originally scheduled.Since no formal notification of a change had been undertaken,the matter was left on the agenda for the June 1,1993,Planning Commission hearing.At this hearing,however,Mr.Joe Norton,the son of Mra.Louiae Norton who owns the property on "T"Street,and Mrs.Danna Davis, the owner of the property on Del Ray who had refused to sign the petition to abandon the right-of-way at her back property line, related that there had been some confusion among neighbors as to the correct date for hearing of this item.Mr.Norton and Ms. Davis indicated that reports were circulating among the neighbors that the matter had been deferred.Ms.Ellen Yeary,the architect on the project who was representing the applicant, admitted that the applicant had told various neighbors,when that seemed the only course,that the matter would be deferred.After the Planning Commission hearing,Staff received a call from a neighbor to the south who also wanted to know why the hearing had been conducted despite being told by staff that the hearing was to have been deferred.This particular neighbor,a Mr.Rick Jones,had,indeed called on May 24,1993,after the request had been received to defer the matter and before the decision was made to leave the item on the agenda,and had been told that the item was to be deferred.Mr.Jones indicated that all the neighbors on the south of the applicant's property had been planning to attend the hearing and would be in attendance at the next scheduled hearing date on this matter. PL I MMI SI A TI (JUNE 1,1993) Ms.Ellen Yeary,architect,was present to represent the applicant.Staff outlined the request and made the explanation that the right-of-way abandonment issue had been separated from the request and was being taken directly to the Board of Directors.Staff added that the Planning Commission may wish to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors,but that the matter was on the Board's agenda of June 1 to set a public hearing to abandon the rights-of-way of "T"and Glover Streets at the June 15,1993,meeting date. Ms.Yeary explained that Glover Street had been abandoned in 1958,but that fragments of Glover street had been retained at the end of "T"to provide a turn-around.These fragments,plus 180 feet of "T"Street were included in the request for abandonment.Ms.Yeary explained that in the original scheme considered,more of "T"Street,an additional 50 feet to the east lying in front of Mrs.Louise Norton's home,was shown on the 6 June 15,1993 ITEM ~A n in FILE .Z-4 plan to be abandoned.when Mrs.Norton and her sons rejected the plan,the site plan was amended to delete that portion.The proposed classroom building facing the "T"Street right-of-way has a drop-off drive-thru and traffic island in front of it,and a portion of the drive and island extended into the right-of-way in front of Mrs.Norton's.This drive and island had to be moved further west when Mrs.Norton would not agree to the street abandonment. Mr.Joe Norton,one of Mrs.Norton's sons,addressed the Commission.He responded that he and the family do not object to what Miss Selma's is trying to do,but he did have some concerns which he wanted "on the record".He related that he wanted to besurethattherewasproperfencingandlandscapingbetweenhismother's property and the playground to the west.He wanted to be sure that Mrs.Selma's would maintain "T"Street after theright-of-way was abandoned.He related that traffic is a problem on "T"Street and the surrounding streets;that Miss Selma's blocks off "T"Street to use the street as a playground causing people arriving at the school to use his mother's driveway as aturn-around;and,that a church congregation is apparently using Miss Selma's facility as a meeting place on Sundays and these people use the area in front of his mother's home for parking,aswellasotherareaproperties,and this causes a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty on his mother's part in accessingherproperty.Mr.Norton also commented that there had been somemis-information circulated as to the hearing date. Ms.Donna Davis addressed the Commission.She identified herself as a property owner at ¹5 Del Ray St.which backs up to the dead-end of "T"Street and to the Glover Street right-of-way. She reported that the privacy fence which separates her property from Miss Selma's is her fence which she maintains.She complained that "kids"and cars damage the fence which she then has to repair.Ms.Davis expressed concern that she would looseherprivacywithatwo-story building looming over the fence atherbackyard.Additionally,she was concerned about the amountoftrafficontheareastreetswhichtheschoolgeneratesandthe vandalism and noise which the school attendees cause. Ms.Yeary explained that Miss Selma's owners had,at the point in time when it was felt that the application would have to bedeferred,related that information to some of the neighbors. Some,then,might not have know that the matter was back on theoriginallyscheduledagenda.She reported that,when Ms.Davis had refused to sign the application to abandon "T"and GloverStreetrights-of-way,and when the recourse was made known to hertopursuetheadverserialabandonmentroute,she had attended the May 26 Board of Directors agenda meeting to make the situation known to the Board and to reguest being able to pursue thatroute.The Board had expressed agreement to permit that route 7 June 15,1993 TEM A C n in ed PILE Z-4 and a Board member agreed to sponsor the application to place the request on the June 1 agenda to set a public hearing for the abandonment for the June 15 meeting.Ms.Yeary responded to Ms.Davis'oncern about the two-story building overlooking Ms.Davis'ack yard with the explanation that the building is designed as a story and a half,with a hip roof and dormers to retain the one-story look of the neighborhood. Deputy City Attorney Giles and Neighborhoods and Planning Director Lawson confirmed the process of adverserail abandonment and the setting of the dates cited. Ms.Yeary concluded her remarks by indicating that the applicant was attempting to "get it done right"in the application to deal with a complex site plan involving proposed buildings which would cross platted property lines.Commissioners,however,expressed concerns about the "two-story"building and asked if Ms.Yeary had any exterior elevations of the building.Ms.Yeary responded that she did have the elevations,but that she had not brought them to the hearing.Commissioners indicated that it would be important to them to view the elevations,and asked if Ms.Yeary would consider a deferral to the June 15,1993 Planning Commission hearing in order for her to both present the elevations and to meet with neighbors to try to resolve their concerns.Ms.Yeary indicated that she would make the request to defer the matter to the June 15 hearing date.It was moved and seconded to accept this reguest,and the motion was approved by a vote of nine ayes and no nays. P ING 0 I N T (JUNE 15,1993) Ms.Yeary,the architect for the development,and the applicants, Michael and Robin Smith,were present. Staff indicated that the item had been deferred from the June 1,1993,hearing in order for the architect to prepare and present exterior elevations of the proposed buildings,and to allow time for the applicants and the architect to meet with concerned neighbors.Staff related that there had been a meeting on Thursday evening,June 10,to which all adjoining property owners had been invited.Staff also reported that the applicant had indicated that the property owner of the one remaining residential property on "T"Street,Mrs.Norton,who had appeared,along with her two sons,in objection to the project at the previous Planning Commission hearing,had agreed to sell her property to the applicant.Accordingly,the site plan and the amount of "T"Street which would be included in the request to the Board of Directors for abandonment would be amended. 8 June 15,1993 ITEM .:A n in E .—4 Mrs.Yeary presented the renderings which she had prepared.She presented the exterior elevations of each of the two proposed buildings and an overlay showing the view of the buildings from the adjoining properties with the existing trees in place.She reiterated the proposals indicated in site development plan and related that the applicants would be willing to construct an eight (8)foot privacy fence along the south property line and along a portion of the west property line to include that part of the property line lying south of the north "T"Street right-of-way line. Mrs.Donna Davis,who resides on Del Ray and whose rear property line abuts the Miss Selma's property,and who spoke in objection to the proposal at the June 1 hearing,addressed the Commission. She indicated that she had been present at the neighborhood meeting,but that she still objected to the proposal.She related that she objected to the additional loss of privacy for herself and to the increased traffic in the area. Mrs.Smith,the applicant,reported that there is a McDonalds restaurant a block away at watt St.and Cantrell Road and another private school a block to the south.She reported that Watt Street was being used as a "cut-through"for traffic going into the areas to the south;that not all the traffic,then,is being generated by her facility.She concurred with Mrs.Yeary's statement that she would be willing to construct an eight (8)foot privacy fence,and that the solid board facing could be on her side,or on the adjoining property owner's side,or on both sides,as re&Zuired by the neighbors. Staff reported that watt Street was scheduled for reconstruction in the current street improvement program,and would be build tocollectorstandards. The motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the establishment of the Planned Office Development.The motion carried by a unanimous vote of the members present with 9 ayes and 0 nays. 9 June 15,1993 I N B FILE '-4 -A SAME:SPRINGTREE VILLAGE —AMENDED SHORT-FORM PRD LOCATION:11701 and 11711 Springtree Drive DS~LtSPRR: ROBERT A.AND M.SUE PURIFOY 11701 Springtree DriveLittleRock,AR 562-1896 ~AR :.165 and .118 ACRES BER F L T :2 FT.W TREET:0~Z:PRD ZRQRQ~ED 1~E :Residential P ING DI TR T:15 ~E~UT~RA T:4 1 .0 6 ARI E RE E :None TATEMENT F P POSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to the existing pRD in ordertomakethefollowingmodificationstopropertiestheapplicant has purchased: 1.At 11701 Springtree Drive,install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio,fence the rear yard, move the rear building line from the location plattedtocoincidewiththerearopenspaceandutility easement,and construct a metal storage building 3 feetofftherearandsouthpropertylines. 2.At 11711 Springtree Drive,install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio and fence the rearyard. A.PR P AL RE E T: Review by the Planning Commission and a favorable recommendation to the Board of Directors for an amendment totheexistingpRDisreguested.The applicant reguests approval to cover existing concrete patio slabs with metalpatiocoversatthetworesidences,to fence the back yardsatbothresidences,and to relocate the rear building line and construct a storage building at the rear of the propertyononeoftheresidences. June 15,1993 ITEM NO.:B n in d FI E .:Z-4 6 -A B.EXI TI NDITIO Both sites are developed,with a single family residence located on each.The sites are located within the Springtree Village PRD.This PRD was established in 1988, but only a few residences have been constructed in the area. This applicant has purchased two of the existing residences, one being the model home/sales office and has constructed metal patio covers over the existing concrete patios. Zoning EnforCement noted the illegal work and the applicant is attempting to gain approval for the work anticipated as well as the work already done. C.ENGINEERING UTILITY C MME Engineering made no comment on the request. The Fire Department approved the request as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company approved the plate as submitted. D.ISS ES LEGAL TECHNI AL DE I On the site of 11701 Springtree Drive,the applicant requests relocating the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear 30 foot open space and utility easement.At the same time,the applicant requests to be able to construct a storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines,this within the 30 foot easement.Either the storage building must be located outside the 30 foot easement or the easement will have to be abandoned at that location. E.~AL~YI When a PUD site plan is approved,the features shown make up the scope of what is allowed to be constructed or placed on the site.Any modifications must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and an amendment to the PUD must be approved by the Board of Directors.The applicant requests approval of a modification to the existing PRD. F.TAFF RE OMME DA I Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications to the existing PRD,except to the placing of the storage building in the open space and utility easement.Modifying of or abandoning this easement is not recommended. 2 June 15,1993 IT B nin FILE Z-4 -A BDIV OMMITTEE T (MAY 13,1993) The applicant nor a representative was present at the Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff presented the request and outlined thedesiredmodificationstotheapprovedsiteplan.The Committee noted that a 13.4 foot side yard on 11711 Springtree Drive and with the "zero"lot line configuration of the PRD (meaning that the house next door would be located just 10.3 feet from the north side of this residence),the patio cover would be only3.4 feet from the next house.No recommendation was proposed, and the Committee referred the item to the full Commission forresolution.It was suggested,however,that a less cumbersome means of allowing buyers to make minor changes to the existing PRD should be implemented by the developer:possibly amending the Bill of Assurance to that effect. P I I SI ACTI (JUNE 1,1993) Mrs.Sue Purifoy,the applicant,and Mr.Scot Goldsholl,her attorney,were present to present the proposed amendments to the PRD.Staff outlined the proposal and indicated that a letter had been received from the developer,Winrock Development,indicatingtheirconcernsintheapplication;specifically,that theyobjectedtoanyencroachmentintothedesignatedopenspace,butdidnotobjecttocoveringtheconcretepatioswithmetalpatiocovers.Mr.Goldsholl presented the explanation that the Purifoys had bought two homes in Springtree Village PRD approximately one year ago:11701 Springtree Drive where the Purifoys reside,and 11711 which they lease to a tenant. Mrs.Purifoy explained that right after they had purchased theresidences,they began what they perceived to be the appropriate means of gaining approval to make the modifications they wishedtomake.They contacted Winrock and talked with Rick Rogers of Winrock who came to their home and reviewed with them their reguested changes.They made numerous attempts to follow up with Winrock on their request,Mrs.Puriofy reported,but to date,nearly ten (10)months later,Winrock still has not responded. According to the Bill of Assurance,Mrs.Purifoy explained,ifthedeveloperdoesnotrespondwithinthirty(30)days,the requested changes are deemed to be approved and the property owner may proceed.Therefore,the Purifoys added the metalcoversatthepatiosinNovemberof1992.Zoning Enforcementpersonnel,however,noted the additions and have under taken enforcement proceedings against the Purifoys.Gaining approvalofthemodificationswhichhavealreadybeenconstructed,as wellastheadditionalmodificationswhicharedesiredistherequestpresented. 3 O'une 15,1993 ITEM NO.:B C n inu d FILE N '4 -A Mr.Goldsholl explained that at 11701 Springtree Drive,the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover;be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side property lines and from the residence out to the north property line;be allowed to move the rear building line east to coincide with the open space and utility easement line at the rear of their property;and,additionally,gain approval for the placing of a metal storage building at the rear of the property (within the open space and utility easement)three (3)feet off the rear and south property lines.At 11711 Springtree Drive, Mr.Goldsholl explained that the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover;and,be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side lot lines and from the side of the house to the north to the side lot line.Mrs. Purifoy added that the re&Zuest to move the rear building line back to the easement line was in order to provide the space needed for a planned future expansion of their residence. Chairman Walker made the observation that he wondered if this item was being thought about properly:should the sill of Assurance be the proper recourse for the Purifoys,or should the PRD be amended2 He cautioned Mrs.Purifoy,though,that simply relocating the building line would not provide the clearance needed to make the planned addition to the residence;that further site plan review would be re&Zuired when plans are completed. Staff commented that the concept of the Springtree Village PRD was for small lot affordable housing with designated open space and no outbuildings and carports.1f changes are made and the open space is encroached upon,there is a difference "picture" created.Staff stated that the established and approved PRD site plan is the controlling instrument as to what is permitted in the PRD. Mrs.Purifoy added that that of the thirty-three lots in the subdivision,there are approximately ten (10)which are developed;that the residents are predominantly low income people who cannot afford to go through the process which they are undertaking to gain approval of modifications,but that a number of other people in the subdivision want to make similar modifications;that the next door neighbor to their home at 11701 Springtree Drive will be going "50-50"on the cost of the fence between them;that the neighbor to the east in the adjacent subdivision has already erected the fence at the rear,at the east edge of the open space-utility easement;that vandalism and thefts have made adding the fences an important reguest;and, that the builder who had originally built the houses in the subdivision had erected fences and patio covers,and had placed a 4 June 15,1993 EM 0:B i FILE Z-4 storage building in the open space easement when he built atleastoneotherhouse.The Purifoys,then,felt that what the builder had done himself,they and others in the PRD ought to beabletodo,as well. Thoughts from various Commission Members and from Staff followed.It was suggested that there might be a possibility of property owners forming a Property Owners Association to present a comprehensive application to modify the PRD.It was questioned whether there ought to be enforcement on this level of detail.It was reiterated that maintaining the open space concept was paramount in this PRD to keep the "look"of the basic concept. Mrs.Purifoy responded that the rest of the property owner- residents of the pRD want similar changes,but cannot afford to pursue the required process.As the same time,she added,she and her husband should not bear the costs for legal and filingfeesfortheentiresubdivisionandtheotherresidents. Prom comments from most of the Commissioners,the consensus emerged that the Commission is unwilling to deal with anapplicationfromanindividualpropertyownerwithinaPRD onspecificitemsformodificationonthatpropertyowner'8 individual lot;that the Commissioners want to look at a combined comprehensive request;and,that the Commissioners would prefertodeferconsiderationoftherequesttoallowfurtherthought and study,and to allow the applicant to bring in a group request from the neighborhood. Mrs.Purifoy recounted that she and her husband were beingrequiredtobeartheburdenofthecostsforthecomprehensiverequest.A motion was made by the Commission,however,to defer,with the applicants concurrence,consideration of the matteruntiltheJune15,1993,hearing date;that in the interim,theStaffhelpthePurifoysandtheirneighborsformulatean appropriate and comprehensive application for the Commission's review.The motion carried with 9 ayes and 0 nays. IN C MMIS I A TI (JUNE 15,1993) Staff reported that the applicant's attorney had submitted aletterdatedJune9,1993,requesting deferral of this item untiltheAugust24,1993 hearing.Staff recommended this request be approved and it was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The request was approved as part of the Consent Agenda with avoteof9ayesand2absent. 5 June 15,1993 ITEM 1 2-1 -E Owner:Orbit Valve Profit Sharing Plans A and B Applicant:Jeffery R.Hathaway Location:North Chicot Road (North of 1-30) Request:Rezone from MP-18 to 0-2 Purpose:Church and School Size:12.0 acres Existing Use;Vacant RR UNDING LAND U E D 2 I North —Vacant,zoned R-2 South -Multifamily,zoned MF-18 East —Vacant,zoned R-2,0-3 and OS West —Vacant,zoned R-2 NOTE;The applicant has requested that the 0-2 rezoning be withdrawn from the agenda.The Planning Commission must vote to withdraw the item because it was included in the legal ad for the June 15,1993 public hearing. P ING COMMIS ION ACTION:(JUNE 15,1993) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a request to withdraw the item.As part of the Consent Agenda,the rezoning request was withdrawn without prejudice.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. tune 15,1993 ITEM 2 Z-468-A Owner:S.Roger Horchow,Agent Applicant:Gene Pfeifer Location:Chicot Road (north of the railroad tracks) Request:Rezone from I-2 to C-3 Purpose:Commercial Size:1.76 acres Existing Use:Vacant S R DING LAND E D Z I North —Industrial,zoned I-2 South —Vacant,zoned I-2 East —Vacant,zoned I-2 West —Vacant,zoned I-2 TAFF ANALYSI The property in question,1.76 acres,is located on the east side of Chicot Road,just north of the railroad tracks.The request is to rezone the site from I-2 to C-3.The land is part of a larger tract that will be purchased by the CityfortheChicotRoad/South University project.The City is in the process of acquiring 4.3 acres for the new roadway and 1.76 acres will be surrounded by city right-of-way. Some of the land to the north is in the floodway and a small portion of the area under consideration (4,200 square feet)for C-3 is also in the floodway.The City already owns the1.4 acre tract adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Zoning in the area includes R-2,0-3,C-3,C-4 and I-2.Atthistime,the property is encircled by I-2 zoning.Along Chicot Road,the current zoning ranges from R-2 to I-2. Land use is made up of single family,office,commercial andindustrial.The single family neighborhood is situated to the south of the railroad tracks,and should not be impacted by any zoning action to the north.Several of the nearbypropertiesareundeveloped,including the I-2 land directlyacrossChicot. Because of the Chicot Road project and the reduced land areafordevelopment,a C-3 reclassification is a reasonable option for the site.The size of the property makes it more June 15,1993 ITEM .2 Z-4 -A on appropriate for a commercial use,and not an industrial project.Rezoning the 1.7 acres to C-3 will not create any problems for the surrounding properties nor will it dramatically change the existing zoning pattern along Chicot.At this time,the adopted land use shows the property as part of a large industrial area.Because ofstaff's support for the C-3,a plan amendment is recommended for this part of Chicot Road. LAND USE PL ELEME The request is in conflict with the plan.The Geyer Springs West Plan shows industrial for the site in question. Since the plan was approved,the alignment for the University-Chicot connection has been determined.The resulting changes warrant a re-examination of the plan.The area south of the creek to the railroad (new alignment) should be shown as commercial.The physical constraints make industrial unlikely and commercial use would provide a step down in use as one approaches the single family area.Staff recommends using the creek as a dividing line between industrial to the north and lesser uses to the south.Then, the road and railroad rights-of-way provide a boundary to even lesser uses farther to the south. For the site in question,the plan should be amended to commercial.If the Commission approves the rezoning,an amendment to change the plan will be forwarded to the Board of Directors. E INEERI MME The designated floodway needs to be zoned OS and dedicated to the City. TAFF RE OMME DATI Staff recommends approval of the C-3 and OS for the floodway. PLANNI MMI IO ACTI N:(JUNE 15,1993) Staff reported that the notices were mailed less than the required 15 days and a waiver of the bylaws would be neededtoheartheitem.A motion was made to suspend the bylaws and hear the request.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent. 2 Zune 15,1993 ITEM NO :2 —4 -A C n Gene Pfeifer was present and said that he was representing the applicant.There were no objectors in attendance. Mr.Pfeifer said that he had no problems with the OS zoningforthefloodwayarea. Some questions were then asked about land use and zoning. Ron Newman,planning Manager,responded to comments and discussed the land use plan element.There was additional dialogue between the Commission and staff about the proposed rezoning. Gene Pfeifer described the site and said it has been reduced from 6 acres to 1.7 acres because of the Chicot/Universityproject.Mr.Pfeifer said the property was no longer aviableindustrialsiteandwasalogicalcommerciallocation. A motion was accepted by the Chairman to recommend approvalofC-3 and OS as amended.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 3 June 15,1993 TEM 0.:3 Z-50 7-B Owner:Deltic Farm and Timber Company Applicant:Joe D.White Location:Deltic North Slope —Various Sites Request:Rezone from R-2,MF-6,MF-18, 0-2 and C-2 to R-2,MF-12,0-3 and C-3. Purpose:Mixed Uses Size:126.6 acres Existing Use:Vacant RROUNDING L D E AN ZONING North —Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2 and 0-2 South —Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2 West —Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2 and C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS This rezoning request,filed by Deltic Farm and Timber for the "north slope"of the Chenal Valley development,is a follow-up action to a plan amendment that was endorsed bythePlanningCommissionin1992.The sites in question wereinitiallyrezonedin1988,as part of an overall land use and zoning plan for the north slope area.The 1992 amendment involved four specific areas and the proposed rezoning are for the same locations.In addition to the land use plan change,there was also a street plan amendment which relocated a proposed arterial that will run from Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway.(The amendments will be forwarded to the Board of Directors at the same time as the rezoning request.) There is one area that includes a rezoning that was not partofthe1992recommendedamendment.In the general vicinityofHighway10andthenewarterial,MF-12 has been requestedforapproximately28acres.The proposed LMF site is northwest of the arterial and adjacent to one of the 0-3areas.MF-12 is a low density multifamily district,andstafffeelsthatitisanappropriatereclassificationfor the location.A LMF area will be added to the plan amendment if the Planning Commission recommends approval oftheMF-12. June 15,1993 IT N K-7-B n Following is an acreage comparison of existing zoning and what is being proposed for this request. ~Exi ~i ZXQXLQEQ4 Multi-Family 47.5 32.0 Office 8.1 10.9 Commercial 24.5 23.3 L U E P ELEME The adopted plans are in conflict with the proposed rezonings.However,the Commission has approved the plan amendments to allow these rezonings.The plan amendments have been held waiting for the rezonings.The proposed rezoning is in agreement with the previous approved masterstreetplanandlanduseplanchanges. EN INEERI 0 MME T There are none to be reported. TAFF REC MME A I Staff recommends approval of all the rezonings as requested. P I OMNI I A TI (JUNE 15,1993) The application was represented by Jack McCray.There wereseveralotherinterestedpersonsinattendance,includingJoeWhite,engineer for the Chenal development. Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reviewed the Land Use Plan andtheMasterStreetPlanamendments,which the Planning Commission endorsed in 1992.Mr.Newman told the Commissionthatthex'ezoning action before them was a follow-up to aplanamendmentandbothitemswouldbeforwardedtothe Board of Directors at the same time. Jack McCray spoke and said he was representing Deltic Farm and Timber',the owner.Mr.McCray made some brief comments and said he or Joe White would be available to answer anyquestions. 2 June 15,1993 ITEM :Z-7-B n Gene Pfeifer,a property owner on the north side of Highway 10,then addressed the Commission.Mr.Pfeifer said that he was representing a family group that has a substantial landholding on the north side of Highway 10,which was zoned for office and commercial uses.He went on to say that he was concerned with the amount of commercial zoning at Highway 10 and Chenal parkway,and then discussed the history of his zoning.Mr.Pfeifer indicated that he might have to consider making some changes to the existing zoning configuration and would probably be submitting a request in the near future for some rezonings.Mr.Pfeifer acknowledged that the intersection was a major node and some of the lands were impacted by overhead power lines. There was some discussion about the amount of commercial zoning in the area and expansion of the node. A motion was made to recommend approval of all the rezonings as requested.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent.(NOTE:There were some comments made after the vote about future rezoning requests in the area and nonresidential zoning.) 3 June 15,1993 ITEM 'Z-1 Owner:Lucille Vines Applicant:Edward C.Qrubbs Location:Otter Creek Road at Stagecoach Road Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose:Office,Laboratory and Shop Size:1.28 acres Existing Use:Single-Family SURROUNDI LAND USE AND ZONI North —Vacant,zoned R-2 South —Vacant,zoned R-2 East —Vacant,zoned R-2 West —Office and Lab,zoned C-3 STAFF YSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone 1.28 acres onOtterCreekRoadfromR-2 to C-3.The site is situated justeastofStagecoachRoad,and the proposal is for the property to be utilized by an engineering firm,located atthecornerofStagecoachandOtterCreek,if the rezoning is granted.Currently,the land is occupied by a single familyresidenceandseveralaccessorybuildings.The property has 288 feet of frontage on Otter Creek Road and an average depth of 193 feet. zoning found in the general vicinity is R-2,C-l,C-2 andC-3.The property in question abuts C-3 on the west and R-2 on two sites.Land use is made up of single familyresidences,multifamily,office,a day care center, commercial,salvage yard,and a Southwestern facility.Several of these uses are nonconforming including thesalvageyardonStagecoachRoad.Throughout the area,thereareundevelopedtracts,especially to the east,which is primarily a large floodplain area.The C-2 parcels and someoftheC-1 property are vacant at this time. Rezoning the site under consideration to C-3 is a reasonablerequestandstaffsupportstheproposedcommercialreclassification.C-3 will not have any impacts on the neighborhood and is compatible with the zoning pattern fortheStagecoach/Otter Creek Road intersection.The area totheeastisidentifiedasopenspacebecauseofthewetlands June 15,1993 NO Z-6 1 n and,therefore,the possibility of stripping out Otter Creek Road with commercial zoning is not an issue.A plan amendment is being proposed by the staff,which is morerealisticandcreatesaworkablelandusepatternforfuture development. L E PLAN ELEME T The request,while basically in conformance,results in a commercial area rather than a mixed office and commercial area.Staff will take this request opportunity to re- examine the area around the request site.The plan was adopted over ten years ago and it now appears some of the proposed uses are unlikely to occur. For example,the Office-Commercial mix proposed no longer appears reasonable.It is more appropriate to show commercial on both sides of Stagecoach Road.The majortrafficmovementisalongStagecoachandfromtheOtter Creek Subdivision to the interstate system.Otter Creek Road provides one of two links to the interstate system as well as a connection to major medical and commercial areas. More of a commercial node is appropriate with community shopping as a designation. As a step down,Neighborhood Commercial uses are proposedfortheentrancetotheOtterCreekSubdivision.This area should be of lesser intensity and geared more to the local neighborhood.Currently,the plan calls for Community Shopping west of Stagecoach and Mixed Office and Commercial east of Stagecoach.This change should be of benefit to the neighborhood with scale and orientation. The Light Industrial use area further to the south is really too intensive;however,there is some industrial zoning in place.To encourage a lesser intensity of development while recognizing some light industrial uses,the Mixed Commercial and Industrial designation is recommended. Finally,the area north of the interstate between the Otter Creek and Crooked Creek is shown for Mixed Commercial Industrial.This area shown has been approved for a church, Geyer Spring Baptist,which has built on the site. Therefore,the plan should be changed from Mixed Commercial and Industrial to Public Institutional. 2 June 15,1993 TEM N 4 Z-1 n E I ERI ENTS Otter Creek Road is classified as a minor arterial which has a right-of-way standard of 90 feet.If the existing right-of-way is deficient,dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. TAFF RE OMME AT I Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning as requested. P I MMI I A (JUNE 15,1993) The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda.A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 as requested.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 3 June 15,1993 IT O.:Z-6 Owner:Ike Uketui Applicant:Ike Uketui Location:¹2 Southern Oaks Court Re&xuest:Rezone from R-2 to R-4 Purpose:Duplex Size:0.2 acres Existing Use:Duplex RR DI LAND SE AND ZONIN North —Single-Family,zoned R-2 South —Single-Family,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family,zoned R-2 West —Single-Family,zoned R-2 AFF ANALYSIS This issue is before the Commission as a result of an enforcement action by the City.The owner at ¹2 Southern Oaks remodeled an existing single family residence into a duplex without first trying to rezone the lot and without obtaining the appropriate building permit.The property is part of a well-established neighborhood,which is located north of West 65th and between Geyer Springs and Lancaster Road. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is R-2,and the lot abutsR-2 property on all sides.Other zoning in the area is R-4,R-5,MF-6,0-3,C-3,C-4,I-2 and OS.The R-4 and MF sites are found on Battle Road and the R-4 is occupied by a lodge and the MF-6 is undeveloped.There is some R-5 land on Lancaster,however,the property is occupied by single family residences.(The most recent zoning action in theareawasaPRDforthreeunitsonLancasterRoad.)The majority of the nonresidential zoned properties are found along West 65th Street.Land use is similar to the existing zoning and includes single family,a church,and commercial. Several of the nonresidential parcels are either undevelopedorhavevacantbuildings. Even though the request is only for R-4,staff is concerned with the possible impacts on the neighborhood and cannot support the proposed reclassification.The proposal is a June 15,1993 IT N z-n spot zoning,which the City tries to discourage as much aspossible,and could establish undesirable precedent for the neighborhood.The subdivision itself appears to be verystable,however,there are some nearby areas,Butler Road,that are experiencing some problems and a deterioration ofthearea's livability.Maintaining the existing zoning ofR-2 should be viewed as one way to keep the neighborhoodviableandtopreventcertainunwantedsituationsfrom bleeding into the neighborhood.Rezoning,to increase density,in a single family neighborhood is very questionable and could lead to a reversal of the positivethingshappeninginagivenarea.And finally,the adoptedplanshowsthelotaspartofasinglefamilyarea. L D U E PL ELEMENT The request is in conflict with the plan.The 65th StreetEastPlanrecommendssinglefamilyforthislocation.While a single duplex might not be against the plan,until thestaffandCommissiondevelopameasuretoaddresswhenthe number of duplexes would change the character to low densitymultifamily,it is not advisable to approve even one duplex.Conditions have not changed in the area to warrant a plan amendment. ENGI ER C MMENT There are none to be reported. TAFP RE MME DATI Staff recommends denial of the R-4 rezoning. PL I MMI ION ACTI (JVNE 15,1993) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred becausetheapplicantwasunabletonotifytherequiredpropertyowners.As part of the Consent Agenda,the request wasdeferredtoJuly27,1993.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. 2 June 15,1993 IT NO.:Z-568 Owner:Ike Uketui Applicant:Ike Uketui Location:4807 Ballinger Request:Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Purpose:Multifamily Size:0.9 acres Existing Use:Single-Family RR D LAND E AND Z IN North —Railroad tracks,zoned R-2 South —Single-FamilY,zoned R-2 East —Single-Family and Multifamily,zoned R-2 and R-5 West —Single-Family,zoned R-3 AFF ALYSIS 4807 Ballinger Road is occupied hy a single family residence and the owner would like to convert the building to four orfiveunits.To allow the increase in the number of dwellingunits,the property must first be rezoned to R-5.Theexistingresidencesitsonthefront1/4 of the lot and therear3/4 is undeveloped.The site has 125 feet of frontage on Ballinger and a depth of 410 feet. Zoning is R-2,R-3,R-5 and I-2,with the property in question abutting R-2,R-3 and R-5.There are severaltractstotheeastthatarezonedR-5 and two of them appeartobeundeveloped.The I-2 is found to the northeast,east and southeast,the industrial area that is along Patterson Road.Land use is made up of single family,commercial andindustrial.There are no conventional multifamily developments in the immediate vicinity.The abutting R-5 is developed with several detached single family structures. The proposed R-5 rezoning is in conflict with the adopted65thStreetEastPlan,and staff does not support therequest.The plan does not recognize the existing R-5 on Hoffman and the nearest multifamily area shown on the planisapproximately1/4 mile to south.It is our position that June 15,1993 M z-n the recommended land use pattern should be maintained by not approving the proposed R-5 reclassification.Endorsing theR-5 could create additional problems for the area,which has already been impacted by some of the multifamily sites found along Butler Road.Another concern is that R-5 rezoning could allow between 20 to 25 units based on the lot size andthelandareaperfamilyrequirementintheR-5 district.A large number of units on the property could create an undesirable living environment,and impact the livability oftheentireneighborhood. L D E PLAN ELEME T The request is in conflict with the plan.The 65th StreetEastPlanrecommendssinglefamilyforthislocation. Conditions have not changed in the area to warrant a plan amendment. ENQINEERI MME TS There are none to be reported. TAF MME ATI Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning request. PL I OMNI ION A TI (JUNE 15,1993) Staff informed the Commission that the item needed to bedeferredbecausetheapplicantdidnotnotifythepropertyowners.As part of the Consent Agenda,the issue wasdeferredtotheJuly27,1993 hearing.The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 tune 15,1993 7 Z- Owner:John and Greg Lamb Applicant:John Lamb LOCation:7604 Eagle Drive Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose:Commercial Size:0.18 acres Existing Use:Commercial URR I D E NI North —Office,zoned C-3 South —Office,zoned C-3 East —Office,zoned C-3 West —Single-FamilY,zoned R-2 TAFF ALY I The request for 7604 Eagle Drive is to rezone the property from R-2 to C-3.The location has 0-3 nonconforming status, and the site has been used as an office for a number ofyears.In 1973,an amendment to the Bill of Assurance for the Chicot Manor Subdivision was approved to allow Lot 2 (7604 Eagle Drive)to "be used for any purpose or purposessetforthinLittleRockCodeSection43-6 "E-1"Quiet Business and Institutional District."E-1 converted to 0-3 with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance of 1980.The amendment was endorsed prior to this part of SouthwestLittleRockbeingannexedtothecity.A C-3reclassificationisbeingrequestedtoallow a portion ofexistingthebuildingtobeutilizedforasmalleatingestablishment.The principal building has 1,346 square feet and an accessory structure has 345 square feet.The lot has 85 feet of frontage on Eagle Drive and is approximately 100 feet west of Chicot Road. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2,R-5,0-3 and C-3. The lot in question abuts C-3 on two sides and R-2 on thewest.Directly across Eagle Drive,the zoning is C-3.The majority of a nonresidential zoning found along this segmentofChicotwasaccomplishedthroughthe"South CentralIsland"Plan,which was adopted in 1982.Land use includes single family,multifamily,a church,office,commercial and APaL substation.There are still nonconforming uses in thearea,and several parcels are undeveloped. June 15,1993 IT 7 Z-n The proposed commercial reclassification of 7604 Eagle Drive is in conflict with the Geyer springs District plan,which reflects the existing zoning and shows the site as single family.Staff is concerned with the potential impact on the subdivision from the rezoning and not providing a good zoning buffer from the C-3 on Chicot to the single family lots along Eagle Drive.Since the property has been used as an office and has a nonconforming status,a possible option for the lot is an office reclassification.Because of the location and the relationship to the neighborhood,0-1 would probably be the logical district.An office rezoning would create an acceptable zoning pattern and provide the normal transition from C-3 to the residential area. E PLAN ELEME T The commercial request is in conflict with the plan. ERI MME T There are none to be reported. T F RE TI Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning and suggest 0-1 as being more appropriate for the location. I MMI I (JUNE 15,1993) The applicant,John Lamb,was present.There were no objectors in attendance.Mr.Lamb spoke and said he wanted C-3 zoning and stated that there was C-3 on three sides.He went on to describe the area and the existing uses. There was some discussion about the existing zoning pattern and land use. John Lamb said that his building was occupied by an office, barber shop and a small snack shop.Mr.Lamb said that he would have problems if the lot was not zoned C-3. There was some discussion about the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,said that the Bill of Assurance could not control the Commission's action on a particular rezoning request. Mr.Giles also said that the Commission should not try to totally offend the Bill of Assurance. 2 June 15,1993 n Additional comments were made by various individuals, including John Lamb and several commissioners. A motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning as requested.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE j 5 j 3 CCAAASEAIT AACPEATTAAA Yedu RECTU toto AIGEutDW MEMBER + BALL,RAMSEY v / CHACHERE,DIANE V TP V v''A'ILLIS, EMMETT v v'CDANIEL,JOHN v V v v NICHOLSON,JERILYN A g A OLESON,KATHLEEN jF v V V y'AP ~V VONTUNGELN,JIM v V PUTNAM,BILL v v v v v erd M y WOODS,RONALD * SELZ,JOE H.v'4 v''ALKER, BRAD v v' TIME IN AND TIME OUT BALL,RAMSEY BF'HACHERE,DIANE WILLIS,EMMETT MCDANIEL,JOHN NICHOLSON,JERILYN A OLESON,KATHLEEN VONTUNGELN,JIM v'UTNAM,BILL v WOODS,RONALD SELZ,JOE H. WALKER,BRAD v'eeting Adjourned !PAF P.M. Yu AYE ~NAYE ~ABSENT edE5 ABSTAIN +DVTOF jgootooil olsoodgloMI ND Ytno, tune 15,1993 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Date '.